% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Luft:128092,
author = {T. Luft and A. Benner$^*$ and S. Jodele and C. E. Dandoy
and R. Storb and T. Gooley and B. M. Sandmaier and N.
Becker$^*$ and A. Radujkovic and P. Dreger and O. Penack},
title = {{EASIX} in patients with acute graft-versus-host disease: a
retrospective cohort analysis.},
journal = {The lancet / Haematology},
volume = {4},
number = {9},
issn = {2352-3026},
address = {London [u.a.]},
publisher = {Elsevier},
reportid = {DKFZ-2017-04114},
pages = {e414 - e423},
year = {2017},
abstract = {Endothelial dysfunction links thrombotic microangiopathy to
steroid-refractory graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after
allogeneic stem-cell transplantation. We aimed to assess if
the simple formula-lactate dehydrogenase
(U/L) × creatinine (mg/dL)/thrombocytes (10(9) cells
per L)-termed the Endothelial Activation and Stress Index
(EASIX), might be valuable for the prediction of death in
patients with acute GVHD after allogeneic stem-cell
transplantation.For this retrospective analysis, we analysed
a training cohort (in Germany) and three validation cohorts
(in Germany and the USA) of patients with acute GVHD who had
received consecutive allogeneic stem-cell transplantation.
The primary endpoint was prediction of overall survival when
measured at acute GVHD onset (EASIX-GVHD). We validated the
prognostic strength of EASIX-GVHD for overall survival and
non-relapse mortality in the three independent cohorts by
calculating the prediction error (integrated Brier score),
and concordance index.In the total cohort of patients with
acute GVHD (n=311), EASIX-GVHD predicted overall survival in
univariable and multivariable models (univariate analysis,
hazard ratio [HR] for a one-fold increase 1·16, $95\%$ CI
1·12-1·20, p=0·0004). However, in the subpopulation of
patients with myeloablative conditioning (n=72), EASIX-GVHD
did not predict overall survival, which is probably
attributable to thrombocytopenia at GVHD onset
(73 × 10(9) cells per L [IQR 29·75-180·00] for
myeloablative conditioning vs 160 × 10(9) cells per L
[90·0-250·5] for reduced-intensity conditioning;
p<0·0001). In patients who received reduced-intensity
conditioning (n=239), EASIX-GVHD was a strong predictor of
overall survival (HR for a two-fold change of 1·23, $95\%$
CI 1·13-1·34; p<0·0001) and non-relapse mortality
(cause-specific HR for a two-fold change of 1·24,
1·12-1·38; p<0·0001). Model validation for prediction of
overall survival and non-relapse mortality by EASIX-GVHD was
successful in two independent cohorts of adult patients with
reduced-intensity conditioning (n=141, n=173) and in a
cohort with mainly paediatric patients (n=89).In patients
with reduced-intensity conditioning, EASIX-GVHD is a
powerful predictor of survival after GVHD. EASIX-GVHD could
be the future basis for development of risk-adapted GVHD
treatment strategies.There was no external funding source
for this study.},
cin = {C060},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331},
pnm = {313 - Cancer risk factors and prevention (POF3-313)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:28733186},
doi = {10.1016/S2352-3026(17)30108-4},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/128092},
}